What can you do to help minimise light pollution?

It is (temporarily, we believe!) a sad fact that anybody can direct a light of any power in any direction in the UK without much fear of penalty. Large numbers of councils have now incorporated anti-light-pollution clauses in their local plans, and planning and environmental departments should be aware of the problem and of the need to forestall it, and to take whatever action they can under still inadequate existing law.

Large numbers of complaints by people against intrusive and injurious lighting may not be pursued, though, until some sort of proper regulation of lighting is in place. Recent cases in England (Bonwick versus Brighton and Hove Council, 2000) and in Scotland (Stonehaven Angling Assn versus Trustees of Stonehaven Recreation Ground and Stonehaven Tennis Club, 1998) have both seen judges declaring that light is a ‘nuisance’ in law. This does not automatically change the law, but will be of interest in any future cases - and there certainly will be future cases, given the evidence from the CfDS postbag of the effects upon the quality of life from poorly directed lights. Do victims really have to lose their jobs and move house because the law says that grievances caused by smoke, noise and vicious dogs are actionable, but assaults of similar severity by light are not?

In the case of night-clubs and similar establishments in several places, for example Northampton, Chester and Skegness, councils have ordered the switching-off of sky-beam advertisements on environmental, amenity and traffic safety grounds (and they were defined as advertisements by Her Majesty’s Planning Inspector Ava Wood in a landmark judgement in Guildford in 1999, and therefore come under environmental regulations)

If writing to your council, and in spreading awareness about sane lighting, you might consider the following options:

Find out who is responsible for lighting.

If "A" class roads are lit, it is normally the Highways Agency; minor roads and side streets are normally lit by the county or district council. All councils will have a lighting engineer, and (s)he should be following the guidelines of the Institution of Lighting Engineers (ILE), which recommend minimal upward light. All major lighting companies, dozens of local councils, the Institute of Environmental Health Officers, the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE - joint producers with the BAA of the Starry Starry Night leaflet), and many other bodies agree with the BAA/CfDS and the ILE that light pollution is not to be tolerated. Anyone installing glary roadlights with upward waste light is simply behind the times and not environmentally aware;

Refer your lighting engineer(s) to the ILE...

...and also to the many lighting firms now producing full-cut-off and semi-cut-off lamps. The FCO type has the bulb surrounded on three sides by the casing, with a flat horizontal glass below, and emits no light at all above the horizontal. The SCO is similar, but may have a shallow bowl or optics which emit the light more to the sides. With the latter, there should still be minimal upward light (what lighting people call Upward Waste Light Ratio (UWLR)). Firms producing good lights include Abacus, Crompton, Philips, Phosco, Thorn and Urbis. Please note that the BAA/CfDS must not be quoted as recommending any particular firm's lights;

Send CfDS leaflets

CfDS leaflets are available online, from the CfDS coordinator or your local officer. Tell friends and neighbours about light pollution. An astronomer in a nearby back garden at night is a far more effective security device than any number of 500W lights! Try to let everybody (local press?) know that the environment above is just as valuable to the human spirit as that below. Get your local environmentalists involved: the CPRE, for example, has produced a "light pollution charter", and declares itself firmly committed to eradicating local light pollution;

Resist arguments such as: "it's not the lights shining upwards. It's mostly reflection off the ground" - anyone standing on a hill over a large conurbation can see with their own eyes that it is the lamps which are glowing brightly, not the ground! Or "cut-off lights are more expensive" - they may be, but what price the environment? The trend is towards environmentally friendly lighting, and councils with glary lights may well have to replace them with something better soon. Why not do it now and save money later? Or "you need more lights with FCOs as they have to be spaced more closely together" - no they don't. The local streetlights in the CfDS coordinator's area have now been replaced with FCO and SCO designs. The night sky is much improved (which further refutes the ground reflection argument) and they are on exactly the same columns as the old, wasteful lights. The M5 motorway was recently relit with FCOs - 4 FCOs for every 5 old, glary lights, so they are actually now further apart. It's column height and the optical reflectors in the lamps which control the light spread, not the distance between them. Or "lights have got to be bright to defeat crime" - there is no proof that light and crime are related. Some studies show a reduction in crime where lighting has been introduced or upgraded. Other studies show the opposite, or no change. The vast amount of crime which takes place in broad daylight suggests that ambient light levels do not deter criminals. The best friend of the modern burglar is the sideways-pointing 500-watt "security" light, which emits a wall of dazzling glare behind which he can work unseen.

Remember...

• The CfDS campaigns for the right of all to be able to contemplate the rest of the Universe if they so wish;
• Our campaign has never advocated the switching off of anybody's light - "the right amount, directed where needed" is the message;
• We realise that this is not a problem that can be solved at a stroke. Darker skies will come in the 21st century: at what stage of that century it happens depends very much on how many of us now make a noise about light-energy waste, and our persistence in doing so.